<p>A question I have is, why is it that private school tuition is going up exponentially? Especially at colleges that have huge endowments. Are they pricing colleges based upon what they think the market will bear, because certainly if you have more applications than ever before—enough people aren’t being scared off because of the cost. Is it part of keeping a college “elite” in that even if the university doesn’t need the money, you must not lower costs because you have to keep up that certain image?</p>
<p>I completely understand why state schools are raising their tuition rates. The states are providing less funds to the schools, and they are forced to make the students pay a greater share of their tuition. Paying 8-10K/year for a challenging state school is quite the bargain, I think.</p>
<p>I didn’t think I would post in this thread, because as some posters have commented, there’s usually multiple threads like this every year in various sections of CC. </p>
<p>However, in reponse to the question about why costs are rising, I remember finding an interesting post in a thread from someone in the biz, so to speak, who wrote the following that I think addresses busdriver11’s question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know the last sentence references public institutions, but I’m sure there’s pressure on privates at well. You can’t just continually keep dipping into endowment to cover rising costs.</p>
<p>I am not a republican (I feel it necessary to state that upfront) but if you look at private U’s and how regulation has changed their operations and cost structures you might well become a republican.</p>
<p>Universities have entire departments for compliance now. Every research grant that comes in- budget compliance, animal rights. Every hiring decision- how many candidates were considered and was race or gender considered. This is not one or two people- these are huge teams spread out across the university to make sure that laws are not broken in the course of doing business.</p>
<p>And then there’s litigation. We live in a litigious society. Huge teams of in-house legal counsel and risk managers. Slip and falls, frivolous charges of sexual harrasment, kid stumbles on the steps of his dorm after leaving a frat party drunk-- before you know it, there’s a lawsuit because the step was slippery.</p>
<p>It would be nice to go back to the 1960’s when the non-academic administrators could fit in one building (a CFO, head of physical plant, head of security, a bursar and a registrar) but that’s unthinkable now. You’ve got boatloads of professionals working to keep the university out of court and out of litigation, and that costs money. More than a fancy climbing wall and more than a nice espresso machine in the dining halls.</p>
<p>I’m lucky enough to be a third generation Brown grad, from a familiy that somewhat belies the assertion made earlier that schools like the Ivy League were only for the upper class until 40 years ago or so. My grandfather came off the farm in Connecticut and worked his way through Brown shovelling coal in furnaces. I recall him saying that tuition was $100 a semester (he graduated in 1918). My Dad went to Brown on the GI Bill after World War 2. I graduated 30 years ago and my parents were able to pay the room, board and tuition on a single middle-class income (my Dad was an engineer, my Mom started working part-time when my brother went to college two years later). When I graduated, room, board and tuition was just shy of $10,000, which is about $30,000 in today’s dollars.</p>
<p>I understand the point made above that colleges and universities need to maintain a lot more state-of-the-art equipment and facilities now than 30 years ago. I don’t understand how that justifies the cost of Brown and similar schools in real dollars almost doubling during that time. I have to wonder about the necessity of some of these facilities. The last time I was at Brown (for my 30th reunion), I was astonished at the amount of construction going on. Do they really need a third athletic center, for example? Still, it doesn’t seem to be hurting them–there were over 30,000 applications this year.</p>
<p>My son was not interested in Brown, nor would he get in with his grades and scores. But even if he could get in, he wouldn’t be going there. Brown does not do merit aid and we would not qualify for need-based aid. Brown does not give aid to upper middle class families (unlike HYP) and the cost is beyond my ability to pay without taking on substantial debt (his and/or mine). He has already been admitted to our state flagship and an OOS flagship. We are waiting to hear from another OOS flagship and a couple of privates that may provide some merit aid. But he knows that if he doesn’t get merit aid he’s not going private. If the private colleges were $35 or even $40K, that would be doable. That kind of number allows for inflation since 1980 and some equipment and facilities that weren’t needed back then. But almost double the cost? Really? I just can’t justify that.</p>
<p>I have a kid who graduated Brown in 2008. Brown actually does give need based aid to upper middle income families. While people on CC may debate this, those who make over $100,000 per year would be considered upper middle class. That is the top 15% of wage earners in the country. While there seems to be many on CC who make a lot more than that, I don’t, but still consider my kids upper middle class. We were very pleased with the aid at Brown, which increased a bunch my child’s last 3 years there because we had another child in college one year behind her and so that meant our need grew.</p>
<p>However, RIGHT after our D graduated from Brown, the financial aid policies got even WAY better! If only they were in place when she attended (not that I truly have any complaints). </p>
<p>So, let’s take one example from Brown’s site of a family of 4 that earns $105,000 per year with just one kid in college (which is upper middle class)…</p>
<p>So, the parent has to come up with about $20,000/year. That may be hard with making $105,000 per year and so let’s say that they can spend $10,000/year out of yearly income. They may also hopefully have some savings. But even if they have no savings, the parents could take out a Parent Plus Loan of $10,000/year for four years and thus the parents owe $40,000 after graduation which they should be able to finance on their income since they were spending $10,000 out of pocket each of the four years and so should be able to shell that out in loan payments after graduation. And this is assuming they truly can’t afford the parental contribution in the first place.</p>
<p>This truly should be doable. I think the financial aid is pretty generous for an upper middle class family and their new policies since my D graduated tries to eliminate loans as much as possible or keep them lower. The scholarship amount is pretty darn good for someone in that income bracket. And it gets better if you have two or more in college at the same time, which many do for some of the years of college.</p>
Probably 90% of the dorms at my alma mater are very close to exactly the same as when I was there. Yet they cost 10X as much. The meal plan costs $12-15 per meal, whether you eat it or not - it would be cheaper to go to an actual mall food court.</p>
<p>They now require students to live on campus for two years - the reason is obvious, it’s a huge cash cow, because it’s double (at least) what it would cost to live on your own.</p>
<p>You can’t chalk this up to “frivolous comforts”.</p>
<p>In the mean time the president is now making over a million dollars and has gotten the school to build a new palatial residence (20,000 square feet in size), and has bodyguards (!). Now this is totally frivolous, and it has nothing to do with students.</p>
<p>They’ve thrown up a lot of new buildings, but I’m pretty sure they have funding lined up before they start - they are not financing them. So that isn’t the explanation either.</p>
<p>The cost of meals on campus IS significantly higher than when the kids can buy food ala carte or off campus or cook. My kids have saved us significant $$$ by staying on the minimal meal plan & dropping it as soon as they could. They both prefer to have the freedom to eat what and where they choose. $12-15/meal for what is served on campus really is quite high, especially if it’s several meals/day.</p>
<p>My kids’ private school dorm and apartments are MUCH nicer than any I lived in when I was a student. They most recent apartment really disappointed S tho, he said it was all flash & dash but shoddily constructed and VERY SMALL rooms. He said that the private apartments he had last year were MUCH better and that is what D is looking for next year instead of the one she has now.</p>
<p>They offered iPads or bikes as an incentive to try to get kids to fill the rooms in the new apartment (but of course no incentive to the kids who already locked in early). This year, they’re offering cruises to try to attract kids to signing up for next year. D says she & her friends prefer to save their $$$ & find a place they like better – their brand new apartment this year underwhelmed all of them. </p>
<p>I think the frivolous comforts are just a cover for gouging the students & parents for fluff no one needs. I think all the kids have learned an important lesson, tho not the one the U had intended to teach. ;)</p>
<p>A poor person’s kid has a lot of advantages when he makes into a top school. He might get a free education while others pay $50K+ each year. However, growing up poor may simply eliminate his chance to get to a top school in the first place.</p>
<p>Not that I’m complaining (well, maybe a little) but lake42ks speaks the truth. Parents with joint AGI’s in the $75K-$125K range are in that not-so-sweet spot of their EFC being too high to get need-based aid from top private schools, and their income being too low to be able to afford anything other than State U. without incurring massive PLUS loans. </p>
<p>Two instances in our HS district of smart but not brilliant kids being accepted to a nearby Top 10 private with what I’m guessing is massive need-based aid. Single-parent homes, both of them, with the corresponding low income. I would say both my D’s had about a 50% chance of admission if they had applied, but even if they had wanted to I would have refused to let them, knowing we couldn’t pay full boat or even close to it.</p>
<p>That’s the dilemma/conundrum. You do the right things, keep a stable household, work your *** off, save where you can, and are ‘rewarded’ this way. But it’s a choice, and fortunately my D’s have done/are doing great at OOS publics where the cost is a stretch for us but hopefully manageable in the end.</p>
<p>There are good privates in the 35 to 45 range. How do I know? Since my d first told me she couldn’t stand going to any cold school and she preferred small LACs, I started looking for them. They are there- in the south, in parts of the midwest or great plains (not actually not cold places but ones that sent her material anyway). How am I judging good- rigorous programs, kids complaining that they have to write papers, lots of class discussions, great opportunities for research (although our d is not going into science, we think, h works in the field and was really impressed with how much and what types of research was going on at these schools). As I like tp argue with my son, where we live is the South -I grew up here and started kindergarten in segregated schools and remember which state parks were for whites and which for blacks. BUt now more commonly it is thought of as midAtlantic or even Northeast and certainly many students here who leave the state go north to PA or NJ or further to NY and New England. Less go south but there are cheaper, well regarded schools down there along with honors colleges and programs at state schools that are eager for OOS students to apply. The US population is moving south and west and more jobs are open in non Union, low or non tax states, and along with these future prospects for employment, the schools are much cheaper. Just another alternative for families facing high costs of college educations.</p>
<p>Totally agree, MilitaryMom.
There are a number of very good known and not-so-well-known schools in the warmer climates. And your point that the population is shifting south is also a good one. I’d like to see some of these schools increase their job placement network a bit. That would really help as well. That said, I suspect that the smaller, lesser known but good LACs in the south have as good or better job placement success than some of the non-flagship tier 3-4 schools up north.</p>
<p>I should stop reading threads like this, because the cynicism just depresses me. </p>
<p>When I started teaching at my U, the library had just transitioned from the old card catalog to a new computer system. Out with the huge cabinets of draws filled with cards, in with lots and lots of computer terminals. Similarly, faculty started with just a computer and no printer–we had one joint printer for all of us and we would copy files onto disks and then carry them to the computer hooked up to the printer. We now all have printers. No wireless technology at that point–we put that in several years ago, though, so students can reach the net while in class. We had mostly chalkboards or dry-erase boards. A couple VCR/TVs for the entire department that we would have to reserve. Now we have classrooms with computers with internet access, DVD players, projectors, screens, etc. In addition, when I started there were basically no real IT people. Now we have 3 positions who are responsible for the IT needs for our building and I think the one next to it It’s good to know that when your teaching and something goes wrong with the computer system in class, there’s someone down the hall to call and it can get fixed.</p>
<p>All of this really, really costs. </p>
<p>It’s just too easy to say that Us are ‘gouging’ students and spending on frivolity. There is waste in almost every organization, sure, but lots of stuff added in the last twenty years has been services that students/parents have asked for.</p>
<p>Again, when I started, no study aboard office. Now we have one–there’s at least a director and staff person, and maybe a little scholarship money to support students.</p>
<p>Students wanted more access to the writing center–before you had to make an appointment, now we have ‘drop-in’ hours all day. There are tutors there who now wait for students to drop-in. More tutors had to be hired.</p>
<p>Advising has increased tremendously. When I started, there was only 1 advisor for our division, now there are three.</p>
<p>It seems a middle class family at a certain income level would almost have to give up the “perks” of being middle class to afford schools that the “poor” family may recieve full financial attend to attend. I don’t know what that income level would be, I am sure it varies for everyone and every region in the country. I can see why that would cause resentment, (not saying it’s right or wrong). The poor family can’t buy a new car, or maybe any car, this family certainly isn’t going to Disney World, or out to dinner, or paying for tutoring or fancy lessons. They don’t live in a great neighborhood that gives them access to good public schools. The middle class family (making $70,000?) probably has to give up a great deal of those thing vouluntarily to pay for college. This is just me rambling a bit and speculating, no facts but I can imagine it must be frustrating.</p>
<p>We are fortunate to be able to pay college costs out of current income for our only child. He had the luxury of choice and believe me I know what a luxury that is. I personally think there will be a large amount of college loan defaults over the next 10 years which may finally cause colleges and universities to examine their costs and aid policies. I know it is the banks and taxpayers who will bear the brunt of it, but the bad publicity and inevitable finger pointing may have some effect.</p>
<p>It is not fair. Nothing is fair in life, and this system is not fair either. Those kids who could get into many colleges for free with merit awards are the same ones who get accepted to those schools that offer the best financial ald. If you have a kid who would truly benefit to the point where it could make a big difference in completing college or not, he is unlikely to be the type of kid who will get merit awards, get into schools that give geneorous aid. These are the kids who will often benefit the most from a small private school and eaten alive in an impersonal state commuter type school. But the parents have to pay for this personal attention.</p>
<p>There are some small schools that do cater to such students and can make a big difference for not quite as big of a differential in cost as some private schools. Manhattan College in Riverdale section of the Bronx in NYC is one of them. These hidden gems are hard to find. </p>
<p>But I often see families spending the most money on the child that needs it the least. Buying that clear sign of success often comes into the equation. To say you have a child at Princeton gives you some pizzaz. To be paying that amount for a kid at Prince Town College is not considered money well spent when it could have had a bigger impact in that child’s life.</p>
<p>It is illegal to “default” on student loans. You, in fact, cannot do this. They are not even forgivable at death, which means they are, like taxes, taken out of the estate. This is why the lending is done at the level it is done.</p>
<p>If you could default on student loans, the banks would have to lend responsibly, and the lending would descrease significantly, as, then, would college prices. This is why the costs are so high, much like what happened in the real estate markets when banks were doing no-doc lending.</p>
<p>Of course, after reading the article and seeing that they could have structured a repayment plan for as low as $15/month, I have little sympathy for them. Kind of hard to forget an $80,000 student loan in my world.</p>
<p>Holy cow. We are full-pay and we are not “penalized” for it. I’m privileged to be able to do this, to allow my kids to do their college search without once having to worry about loans and debt and what-will-this-cost and can-we-afford-it and what-about-the-plane-fare, we had the luxury of going ED at their first choices, and I wouldn’t trade that position for anything. I think it’s obnoxious to say you’re “penalized” for it. If you can afford that kind of money and choose not to spend it, then fine, own that choice, but don’t pretend you’re penalized.</p>
<p>And that’s great for you, Pizzagirl, you obviously make a high income and are doing well. I also have no complaints about my situation. But for those people, to quote, in the “not so sweet spot,” who are making enough money not to qualify for assistance, and yet don’t happen to have an extra 50K/year (at 70-100K/year, who has that to spare), and haven’t made enough over the years to save the 200K for college…they do have to make some tough choices. Do we go into massive debt for this college? Or do we not send our kids to their top choices?</p>
<p>If they’re lucky, the kids get merit scholarships, or their top choices aren’t pricey. I think the answer is either to look very closely at what aid you might get before the kid even visits or applies to the school, because why have them go through all that if they couldn’t even go there if they got in? And for somehow the prices to come more in line with inflation.</p>
</p>